A game of give and take: The introduction of multi-layer (water) safety in the Netherlands and Flanders

Despite some inertia, flood risk governance in Belgium has been fairly dynamic between 1995 and 2015. In this paper, change and stability during this period are described and explained in the four dimensions of the Policy Arrangement Approach: actors, discourses, rules, and resources. The analysis is based on 72 semi‐structured stakeholder interviews and legal document analysis. Belgian flood risk governance is characterised by a high level of fragmentation. Our analysis found that this can form a barrier to change, but at the same time it creates multiple entry points for policy innovation and thereby increases the dynamics within the governance arrangement.

“…Kaufmann et al . () indeed find that, in comparison to the Netherlands, Flemish FRG has been more accessible for the MLWS discourse, partly due to its more open character.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Belgian flood risk governance: explaining the dynamics within a fragmented governance arrangement

Mees

Crabbé

Suykens

2017

“…In Belgium, this was the case too, but here the new ideas cluster was the dominant force of change. The impact of the ongoing ‘systemic’ change in Belgium on FRG was not as direct as in France; the relative ‘volatility’ of the institutional context mainly added to the openness of the arrangement for new ideas (Kaufmann et al, ). Despite considerable systemic change in Poland (the fall of the communist system in 1989–1990, EU accession in 2004) and a potentially strong sub‐optimality cluster (catastrophic floods in 1997 and 2010), FRG in that country showed surprisingly little change.…”

Section: Explaining Stability and Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining stability and change. Comparing flood risk governance in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Poland

Liefferink

Wiering

Crabbé

et al. 2017

The closing article of this special issue provides a comparative analysis of flood risk governance (FRG) in four European countries and tries to explain why FRG in the Netherlands and Poland is more stable than in Belgium and France. It examines the role of mechanisms of path dependency and path change. Inspired by the conceptual framework developed in the introductory article, this article provides an overview of dynamics in FRG in the four countries and identifies major trends and tendencies. It discusses forces of stability and change and hypothesizes on how ‘clusters’ of these forces tend to interact. It is found, among other things, that new ideas are often crucial for initiating change and that fixed costs and the sedimented distribution of responsibilities are stabilising factors. Bringing together various existing theories, the article contributes to literature on flood risk management and public policy change.

“…The policy concept multilayered safety emerged from this trend (Rijksoverheid, ). It comprises three management approaches: embankments, spatial planning measures and emergency management, and has also been widely analysed (Jongejan et al ., ; Hegger et al ., ; Tsimopoulou et al ., ; Kaufmann et al ., ).…”

Section: Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The policy concept multilayered safety emerged from this trend (Rijksoverheid, 2009). It comprises three management approaches: embankments, spatial planning measures and emergency management, and has also been widely analysed (Jongejan et al, 2012;Hegger et al, 2014;Tsimopoulou et al, ;Kaufmann et al, 2016c). Within these two macro-trends, this article zooms in on three more specific institutional changes (or lack thereof ) to analyse the interaction of forces for stability and change.…”

Section: Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, the epistemic community and knowledge expertise within governmental authorities broadened. Due to these developments, actors in favour of change were in the right venue to strategically promote their new values (Van der Brugge et al, 2005;Huitema and Meijerink, 2007;Van den Brink, 2009;Kaufmann et al, 2016c). This development was further supported by the rules dimension in two ways.…”

Section: Adjustment Of the Defence Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Limits to change – institutional dynamics of Dutch flood risk governance

Kaufmann

2017

Despite several stimuli for change, flood risk management (FRM) in the Netherlands remains dominated by a probability‐reducing flood defence approach. The aim of this article is to analyse, empirically, the institutional forces for change and stability that explain particular institutional dynamics. The qualitative research revealed that even though a combination of forces for change (in the realm of discourses, actors, resources and rules) is present, their influence is partly neutralised by forces for stability. These forces for stability became incrementally and iteratively more and more institutionalised and mutually reinforced each other, thus stabilising the defence approach. As a consequence, FRM is path dependent, i.e. the development of alternative FRM approaches may be influenced by the dominant defence approach. Nevertheless, in this context, change processes of conversion and layering can be observed, which indicates that even a highly path dependent arrangement has the possibility to adapt to particular challenges.